DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. KULWANT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

B, 69 C or 69D at a flat rate of 30%. Prior to 1.4.2013, any unexplained income of the assessee either offered by himself or detected by the Assessing officer are to be taxed as per the normal rate as prescribed from time to; time. However, during the period of demonetarization in the year 2017, it was noticed that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

B, 69 C or 69D at a flat rate of 30%. Prior to 1.4.2013, any unexplained income of the assessee either offered by himself or detected by the Assessing officer are to be taxed as per the normal rate as prescribed from time to; time. However, during the period of demonetarization in the year 2017, it was noticed that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. MANJIT KAUR, CHANDIGARH

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

B, 69 C or 69D at a flat rate of 30%. Prior to 1.4.2013, any unexplained income of the assessee either offered by himself or detected by the Assessing officer are to be taxed as per the normal rate as prescribed from time to; time. However, during the period of demonetarization in the year 2017, it was noticed that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SMT. JASWANT KAUR, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

B, 69 C or 69D at a flat rate of 30%. Prior to 1.4.2013, any unexplained income of the assessee either offered by himself or detected by the Assessing officer are to be taxed as per the normal rate as prescribed from time to; time. However, during the period of demonetarization in the year 2017, it was noticed that

DCIT, CHANDIGARH vs. SH. PARAMJIT SINGH, MOHALI

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

B, 69 C or 69D at a flat rate of 30%. Prior to 1.4.2013, any unexplained income of the assessee either offered by himself or detected by the Assessing officer are to be taxed as per the normal rate as prescribed from time to; time. However, during the period of demonetarization in the year 2017, it was noticed that

JARNAIL SINGH GILL,JAGRAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JAGRAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: The Tribunal & The Matter Was Remanded Back To Ao For Fresh Adjudication. Thereafter, The Assessment Order Was Passed

section 271(1)(b) of the Act. 2. At the outset, there is a delay in filing of the appeal as pointed out by the Registry. After hearing both the parties and the considering the affidavit of the assessee placed on record, I find that there was reasonable cause in the delayed filing of the appeal, the same is hereby

SMT. RENU JAIN,ZIRAKPUR vs. ITO-WARD-3(3), CHANDIGARH

Bench: Us:

condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. As is discernible from the records, it was the claim of the assessee that as the impugned order passed by the A.O. under section 271(1)(b

SH. BALWAN SINGH,PANCHKULA vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Gupta

271(1)(c) of the Act, dated 21-03-05 & 28-11-08 respectively and relate to the same assessment year (in short referred to as A.Y) i.e 1995-96. 2. Initially both the appeals had been dismissed by the ITAT on limitation grounds, not condoning the delay in filing of the same, vide their order dated

JYOTI SHARMA,PINJORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANCHKULA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

delay was condoned. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed another order under section 250 in the context of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(b

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICE SOCIETY ,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH , PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax Act, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges out from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act. 3. First, we take the quantum appeal

SHRI DARBARA SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO-WARD-5(5), CHANDIGARH

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

B”, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) "ी एन.के.सैनी, उपा"य" एवं "ी आर.एल. नेगी, "या"यक सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , R.L. NEGI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 37/Chd/2020 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Darbara Singh बनाम The ITO H.No. 228, Sector-52 Ward-5(5) Vill: Kajheri, Chandigarh Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./PAN

RAM PARSAD DAV PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY,MARKANDA vs. ITO (EXEMPTIONS), WARD, AMBALA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

condone the delay for which sufficient cause is shown, and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. In the present appeal, Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. Because the action is being challenged on facts & law for there being breach to the Provisions of Section 250(6) r.w. Section 250(4), 250(5), 251(l)(a), 251(l)(b

BALDEV SINGH,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARDS 1, FATEHBAD

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yaday & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 813/Chd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Baldev Singh, Vs. The Ito, बनाम M/S Baldev Singh Jarnail Ward-1, Singh, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad Dharsul Kalan, Tehsil Tohana, Fatehabad

condone the delay and proceed to decide the appeals on merits. 8. The Assessee has taken five grounds of appeal out of which Ground No. 5 is a general which does not call for recording of any specific findings. 9. In Ground No.3, Assessee has pleaded that the ld. Assessing Officer has erred in charging the tax u/s 115BBE

THE GHARTHOON AGRI CULTURAL SERVICES SOCIETY,KANGRA, HIMACHAL PRADESH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - PALAMPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH, PALAMPUR

In the result, appeal is allowed

Section 144/144B of the Income Tax\nAct, ITA No. 927/CHD/2025 emerges out of a penalty\nproceeding u/s 271(1)(b) and ITA No.926/CHD/2025 emerges\nout from a penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax\nAct, whereas ITA No.928/CHD/2025 emerges out from penalty\nproceeding u/s 271F of the Income Tax Act.\n\n3. First, we take the quantum

SMT. SHASHI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition so upheld. Since the issues involved in both the appeals were interrelated ,they were heard together and are being disposed off by a consolidated order. Also since the outcome of the quantum appeal may have a bearing on the adjudication of the penalty appeal, we shall first be taking

SMT. SHASHI JAIN,LUDHIANA vs. ITO, W-VII(2), LUDHIANA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(c) of the Act on the addition so upheld. Since the issues involved in both the appeals were interrelated ,they were heard together and are being disposed off by a consolidated order. Also since the outcome of the quantum appeal may have a bearing on the adjudication of the penalty appeal, we shall first be taking